The antemortem canonization of BXVI

Move over santo subito, there’s a new game in town; canonization antemortem, that is, Sainthood before death.

Case in point, First Things has published an article (which also serves as a Foreword to Dr. Peter Kwasniewski’s recent book on the sacred liturgy, Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness) from German writer Martin Mosebach that amounts to a canonization of Pope Benedict XVI.

Big deal, I know…

Benedict XVI is perhaps the only man alive with a more rabid fan base than Cardinal Raymond Burke, but the writer in this case is noteworthy.

Martin Mosebach has long enjoyed a rather solid reputation as a “traditionalist;” in particular as it concerns matters liturgical.

He has also been critical of Amoris Laetitia and widely quoted in favor of the dubia.

In other words, he’s not just another disoriented neo-con.

Or is he?

The First Things article is some 5,500 words long, but here are just a few of the highlights, beginning with Mosebach’s treatment of the Council:

We all can recall how bishops and theology professors, pastors and the functionaries of Catholic organizations proclaimed with a confident, victorious tone that with the Second Vatican Council a new Pentecost had come upon the Church—which none of those famous Councils of history which had so decisively shaped the development of the Faith had ever claimed.

So far so good. I mean, every “traditional” Catholic worth a wooden nickel realizes that this phrase, “new Pentecost” is a magnificent insult hurled straight in the direction of the Holy Ghost.

Mosebach goes on to explain why:

A “new Pentecost” means nothing less than a new illumination, possibly one that would surpass that received two thousand years ago; why not advance immediately to the “Third Testament” from the Education of the Human Race of Gotthold Ephraim Lessing? In the view of these people, Vatican II meant a break with the Tradition as it existed up till then, and this breach was salutary.

And who exactly are “these people” to whom Mosebach critically refers?

We’ll get to that in a moment, but before we do, note that just a few sentences later Mosebach states:

To be fair, we should remember that the popes attempted to counter this [notion of a “new Pentecost”] —with a weak voice and above all without the will to intervene in these aberrations with an organizing hand as the ruler of the Church.

To be fair? To be delusional is more like it.

Apparently, Mosebach doesn’t realize that the phrase “new Pentecost” comes from the Apostolic Constitution of Pope John XXIII, Humanae Salutis, wherein he formally convoked the Second Vatican Council; concluding with a prayer to the Holy Spirit that begins:

“Divine Spirit, renew your wonders in our time, as though for a New Pentecost…”

In other words, the concept of Vatican II as a “new Pentecost” isn’t the brainchild of rascally “bishops and theology professors, pastors and the functionaries;” it’s in the Council’s DNA.

He also appears not to know that Pope John Paul II, who dedicated his more than quarter-century long pontificate to implementing the Council, was pleased to take up the phrase:

The Catholic charismatic movement is one of the many fruits of the Second Vatican Council, which, like a new Pentecost, led to an extraordinary flourishing in the Church’s life of groups and movements particularly sensitive to the action of the Spirit.

More surprising still is that he doesn’t seem to realize that Benedict XVI – the man undergoing canonization antemortem at his hand – did his part to keep the lie alive as well:

The East affected him [John XXIII] so deeply that it led him to convoke the “new Pentecost of the Council” in docility to the Spirit and cordial openness to all peoples.

Let it be said that where Benedict has spoken of the conciliar “new Pentecost” as a desire as yet unrealized, he consistently does so in terms of blaming a faulty “interpretation” or “hermeneutic,” and not because the very notion is offensive in itself.

For his part, Mosebach does admit that the notion of a “new Pentecost” style break between the Church of tradition and that of Vatican II has some appeal. He states:

Anyone accustomed to trusting his eyes and ears could no longer convince himself that this was still the Church that had remained faithful for thousands of years, through all the changes of the ages.

He very quickly, however, dismisses the idea as mere illusion:

The Church can never exist in contradiction to itself, to tradition, to revelation, to the doctrines of the Fathers and to the totality of the Councils. This she cannot do; even when it appears as if indeed she has done so, it is a false appearance. A more profound hermeneutic will finally always prove that the contradiction was not a real one.

That “more profound hermeneutic” refers, of course, to the one invented by Benedict; namely, the “hermeneutic of continuity.”

One also notes that Mosebach does not hesitate to lump Vatican II in with “the totality of the Councils,” as if the 1960’s “pastoral” meeting bears resemblance to the likes of Trent and Nicea in some way other than by name.

Mosebach eventually turns his attention to Benedict’s relationship with the sacred liturgy; a topic considered to be well within his “wheelhouse.”

He states:

Already as Cardinal, Pope Benedict had pointed out again and again how greatly the Mass had been distorted and its meaning obscured by the celebration’s false orientation. He said that Mass celebrated facing the people conveyed the impression that the congregation is not oriented towards God, but celebrates itself. This correct insight, I admit, never made it either into a binding document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or into papal legislation.

Guess where else this “correct insight” never made it?

Into the papal liturgies of the man he is all-too-pleased to canonize even before death.

If interested, you may read the rest of Mosebach’s article for yourself.

While he does make any number of good points with respect to the liturgy, the one thing that stood out to me overall is that here we have yet another example of what Cornelia Ferriera has dubbed a “traditional-conservative.”

Related Posts

Latest Comments

richAugust 15, 2017

A hero of the v2 council and a leader of the downfall of True Catholicism, Fr Ratzinger is now (and actually has been for years, especially after bergoglio) being hailed as a living “Saint”? If I werent a sede Id be crying.

No idea Mosebach was that steeped in error. Never knew much about him but he’s definitely not on the right side as I had supposed from the “Heresy of Formlessness”.

I guess when you no longer believe in either the Resurrection or Ascension, then one will need a brand new Pentecost, and a shiny spanking new church to go along with in order to accomodate one’s more sophisticated lack of belief.

A New Pentecost = a New Church. This New Church cannot be the Catholic Church since she was birthed once and for all 2,000 years ago. Yet another sign from God speaking through his Caiaphas to both instruct and warn us.

Agreed SF. Mosebach has a more balanced opinion on the other article :Return to Form: What these men cant seem to grasp is there are no new heresies. All the false shepherds have done is re hash the First Reformation and painted a “new reformation” – not a Pentecost. There can be just One Pentecost, surely. The other fact is they all, JP 11 and Ratzinger specifically have denied the Divinity of Our Lord. They no longer believe; Jorge has reinforced and added to such blasphemy by opening other false religions to the possibility of eternal Life ; out of hand!
How can the Vicar of Christ deny Christ.? Their positions are impossible as is their “new religions” . Mosebach called Archbishop Lefebre “disobedient” – but to whom was he disobedient? Certainly not to Saint Pope Pius V. He clearly saw the popes in Office as having no clothes[as the Emperor was want to demonstrate] – meaning Faith-and he told them to their face. It made not an iota of difference to their prechosen paths. He was proven correct, he had the faith, they lost theirs to the Devil. Everything entirely consistent with Our Lady’s predictions. Our Lady of Fatima, ora pro nobis.

Here’s a line that interested me. Mosebach wrote, “The Church can never exist in contradiction to itself, to tradition, to revelation, to the doctrines of the Fathers and to the totality of the Councils. This she cannot do; even when it appears as if indeed she has done so, it is a false appearance.” So is he saying that our eyes and ears deceive us when we see and hear blasphemies from Bergolio et al. Or is he saying what appears to be the Church cannot possibly be the Church and our senses deceive us into being obedient to a false church? He never takes this to its next logical step. Who is to culprit of the “false appearance.” Is it the Holy Spirit now moving the Church into unchartered waters? Or is it the devil pulling a fast one on the stricken sheep?

Hey Louie, I have a good idea: Lets just canonize all humans and then have a group hug? Sounds good to me.
Benedict was a modernist from his early days and was a key player in Vatican II. I think that he knows something is terribly wrong with the Church and that it stems from Vatican II. However, he can’t bring himself to condemn that which he has dedicated his whole life to. He and other prelates have brought the Church to it’s dying breath (but can’t kill it). The responsibility they bare towards Almighty God is terrible. To whom much has been given, much will be expected. May God have mercy on their souls.
I hope and pray Our Lady’s triumph isn’t far off. What I see happening to my beloved Church is depressing and very painful. Most especially when I think of all the young Catholics who have been outright robbed of their patrimony and been given rat poison ( The Novus Ordo) in its place.

VCR, I suppose, given the Freudian psychology and psychotherapy with with which everyone is imbued today, you would deny St. Mary Magdalene’s conversion. Fr. Malachi Martin was greatly influenced by the 3rd Secret and changed his ways, and so was Pope John Paul I, but he lasted only 33 days because he was determined to implement Our Lady’s requests, as well as clean up the Vatican Bank.

If Benedict is such a modernist, why did he bring TML back and admit that it had never been forbidden? Why did he discipline Fr. Marciel out of action. Why did he life the excommunications of the 6 Bishops–yes all six? Why did he say that no heretical sects could legitimately be called churches? I suppose you will say he’s a fraud? You’d better be ready to prove what you accuse him of!

FR. everything you say about Benedict XVI is true and all of what he did is good and a step in the correct direction; however, all of it was done on his accord. His human interventions as a means to solve the Crisis in the Church. Pope Benedict XVI along with many of his predecessors had one simple but terrifying task presented to them to simply and peaceful end this great Crisis which was to obedient to the Mother of God’s request at Fatima. Benedict XVI along with his predecessors failed to do so. Instead they took their own approach and used their own human interventions as an attempt to fix the great Crisis and although it brought some good it wasn’t and will not be successful. Many Trads. Are losing sight of what must be done to finally have true peace. Can you imagine if every Catholic decided to fix their own problems by avoiding the sacrament of Penace? Wait isn’t that the world we now live in? It would turn into chaos. This is exactly what the Post conciliar Popes are doing. If the Pope could solve this crisis by his own accord then what was the point of Fatima and Our Lady’s warning and request. These conciliar Popes have to accept the great Cross Our LADY has handed to them in 1917 and fulfill it soon or they will fall in the footsteps of the king of France as predicted by Her. Our Lady of Fatima Ora Pro Nobis!

Beloved Bohemian, thank you for your astute comments; they do have merit. However, do you think that when JP II made his “Entrustment of the World to the Immaculate Heart” in 1984, even without mentioning Russia, he would have been able to garner a simple majority of Bishops to join him in that Consecration? I was studying for the Priesthood in Rome at the time and reports of the response to the Pope’s “passing” invitation to Bishops to join him was miserable.

As for Pope Benedict, himself very well aware of the Message of Our Lady I am convinced would have wanted to make the Consecration correctly. But again the matter of all the Bishops of the world joining him was impossible. Around 2000, I believe, Pope JP II spoke about a silent apostasy in Europe, though I am sure it went beyond Europe. Now if one realizes that apostasy is the abandonment of Christianity altogether–even among the Bishops, how is one going get them to Consecrate Russia, a country, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary when even Catholic Bishops believe that one can consecrate something to God–the result of the world wide influence of Fr. Dhanis S.J., who taught that it was impossible to consecrate something to Our Lady.

One suggestion made by Fr. Gruner to overcome the opposition was for the Pope to command that every Bishop join the Pope under pain of excommunication for refusing. But then the act lacks the free will and the right intention of the Bishop necessary for an act of consecration.

Beyond the problem with the Bishops comes the problem of the diabolical opposition to the Consecration within the Church. It was stated in Pope JP I’s autobiography that he was determined to consecrate Russia. Sr. Lucia herself personally revealed the 3rd Secret to him and it had a great effect upon him. Unfortunately, he didn’t last long. And although it was claimed that his effort to clean up the Vatican Bank was what led to his death, I do not dismiss the possibility that his intention to make the Consecration played a part in it as well.

As for Benedict, his situation is even more complicated. And this has to do with the prospect of his successor more than likely being under the influence of Satan. And it is this that Benedict wanted to prevent, by avoiding the fate of JP I and by that, along with his mysterious renunciation, avoiding a valid election–so long as he lived–of that Cardinal under the control of Satan as Pope. And such is the GREATER COMMON GOOD that Benedict spoke about in relation to his renunciation, a good greater than the praise he would have in dying a martyr for the Faith.

Please try to understand that there are many things of which we are not aware in the decisions of those in authority, and especially those who did much good by their “human interventions”. Please pray for Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

It’s very telling for me when I drive visiting relatives to the Novus Ordo and pick them up afterwards. Seeing the faces of the people walking out of Church, the old and the young, they all just have this spirit of the age about them. Very worldly, proud….dare I say even smug expressions on their faces. No sense of having just been humbled by the Divine King and Judge at Mass—the Pantocrator of the East–something Other, Supernatural. They look comfortable, self satisfied….a religion tidily packed as if into a smart looking suitcase. Young people very haughtily spirited and dressed when they saunter out as if from a college class. It’s not liberal protestantism, its a unique culture, but it is sure close to it. A cult of narcissus, Man’s encounter with Himself–God brought low to Man’s level—for Man to carefully scrutinize and judge–rather than man being elevated in awe to glimpse at the living God. It seems to get worse with each generation.

Please be assured that this commentator is not in the practice of promoting “antemortem canonizatons”, but furthermore it must be borne in mind that each one of us has our own faults, especially when we, myself included, take it upon ourselves to criticize others. Nevertheless, I do not think that in suggesting the use of common sense in analyzing another I am being hypocritical. Let’s consider first and foremost that we are living in unprecedented times! What we are witnessing today within the Mystical Body of Christ is something that one will never find in annals of history. This being the case, it stands to reason that we are not going to be able to find a solution to the problems we face today by examining the Ecclesial events, disasters, situations, political intrigue or delicts of Churchmen occurring in the past 2000 years. What we are experiencing today is unique, and that means that the remedy will also be exceptional.

The first step, then, if one is going to analyse a situation, an individual, actions and words, he MUST attempt to do so in a way that encompasses every aspect of the situation. Now, we can have a certain detailed knowledge of how we got to where we are today, but it is a knowledge based upon what can be known by the senses. There is VC II, the modernist theologians, the perverts among many other things. But what very few seem to take into account is the invisible forces that are truly the cause of the effects we sense. And when ALL the circumstances are NOT taken into consideration, any conclusions or judgments one makes are going to be false, or at least deficient.

Now, these invisible forces have been intimated to us by Our Lady. The Mother of God spoke at Akita about the infiltration of the Church by the devil, but did not detail his plan, except to say that he would infiltrate “in such a way” that Cardinals would be against Cardinal and Bishops opposed to Bishops. And although we see the effect of Satan’s endeavors, we cannot see how he is influencing his human agents. From the 3rd Secret we know that “the apostasy IN THE CHURCH will begin at the top”, but, again, how is this being arranged by those powerful fallen angels whose character is to divide. It has also been publicly stated by Fr. Amorth, the former Chief Exorcist of Rome, that Satan is in the Vatican, that there are Prelates who do not believe in God among other things, information that he said he has from two separate sources. Then, too, we know from Sr. Lucia that the battle field for Satan’s final attack against God will be Marriage and the Family. Here the question necessary to posit is: Who is the ONE PRIMARY visible tool (read, authority) Satan seems to be using to direct that battle?!

The above are the general facts that are known. For, although we have some idea about the contents of the 3rd Secret, we are also aware that there is more. As already mentioned, Our Lady at Akita did not give the details about the plan of the devil. And Fr. Amorth did not mention names in speaking about those Prelates in the Vatican involved with the Occult. Since, therefore, there is much we do not know about what is going on within the Church–we cannot SEE Satan at work, except through certain effects– we must humbly recognize that we are limited in what we can come to know with certainty. And if our conclusions are not certain, they shouldn’t be presented as absolute. On the other hand, one ought to attempt to gain some insight into how the devil works by the study of the diabolical (Fr. Amorth has three books full of helpful information), and when investigating a person, an event or a situation, one must thoroughly study all aspects of that particular subject under investigation.

Still, we do know ultimately the ONE solution: THE CONSECRATION OF RUSSIA TO THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY BY THE HOLY FATHER IN UNION WITH ALL THE BISHOPS. The question here is: how can this be accomplished?

From what has been laid out, it behooves those who analyse matters in at this stage of the 21st Century first of all to take into account the WHOLE PICTURE–at least as far as is possible given the nature of diabolic activity. But also it must be kept in mind that there are those who are in the uppermost positions in the Church who have a much greater, by far, knowledge of the picture than the average blogger in the internet. Just as employees are not apprised of everything that management discusses; as students are not privy to discussions of teachers at their meetings with the principal; and as citizens are not allowed access to classified information; so too within the Church there is much that cannot be made public for various and serious reasons.

Can anyone preclude, given that the devil is called a “murderer”, that certain individuals could be in danger of losing their lives? One may argue: “Well, those so called faithful Prelates should be willing to give their life.” And that is true; however, there may be certain situations where a greater common good in necessary to protect and which can only be done as long as one is alive, in which case it that Prelate is obliged to be as “cunning at the serpent” in order to protect that objective higher good–no matter what people may say and not to worry about how well thought of he might be of by dying a martyr’s death.

One example should suffice. Our Lord promised Peter at Caesarea Philippi that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. But here is another question: If someone within the power Satan were to be elected POPE, would it not make a sham of Christ’s promise? And if someone makes the effort to prevent it, is he not to be commended?

In conclusion, I just wish to exhort those who are willing to tear down whoever has the appearance of being on the wrong side to be cautious, especially when that individual is in a position or has had a position that of its nature demands that certain “classified” knowledge and information cannot be revealed. And since we as laymen and even clergy do not and cannot have an extensive and integral view of the situation in the Church today, given the unprecedented involvement of preternatural enemies, we ought to recognize our limits and give the benefit of the doubt to those who have in many ways given recognizable evidence of their intention to work for the good of the Church.

Please continue to beg the Immaculate Heart of Mary for the prudence and courage to speak the truth with prudence. Remember, it is much easier to tear down a building than it is to construct it. And I think we need more building up, more solid suggestions as to what the faithful should believe and do under today’s circumstances rather than leading souls into dislike or even hatred of others.

Fr B, in these times of diabolical disorientation, your advise sounds quite tepid. Hot or cold is what our Lord prefers. Where is the zeal? Where is the righteous anger? So much talk about patience and if only Russia would be comsecrated. No, this crisis demands voices lifted up and those who utter even one error, denounced, lest the error consumes even the pitiful few faithful Catholics left. We the faithful raise our voices up because the prelates are cowards. When we speak we are accused of judging and told to be patient. Enough already.

Zeal for spreading error and destroying reputations when one doesn’t know the whole story is doing the work of the Devil! If that is what you are defending, Tom, you are defending what goes against God and the Teaching of His Church. I was in no way trying to undermine zeal; in fact I never mentioned it; the idea comes from your own imagination and perhaps from anger as well.

Great comment Father. You hit the nail on the head. I want to copy this from your first paragraph because it is worth reading again:

“Let’s consider first and foremost that we are living in unprecedented times! What we are witnessing today within the Mystical Body of Christ is something that one will never find in annals of history. This being the case, it stands to reason that we are not going to be able to find a solution to the problems we face today by examining the Ecclesial events, disasters, situations, political intrigue or delicts of Churchmen occurring in the past 2000 years. What we are experiencing today is unique, and that means that the remedy will also be exceptional.”

The phrase “mystery of iniquity” comes to mind. For all of us who think we got this all figured out, it’s time to step back, for we could be horribly wrong.

I understand where you are coming from Rev. Fr. There is certainly an aspect of prudence to wait for things to be revealed in their fullness. Yet there will come a time when priests and prelates will have to make a choice to put their heads on the chopping block (literally or proefessionally) a la Sts More and Fisher or face their own apostasy from. The truth. I personally dont see any other way around it at this point. The Vatican cannot be excercised in some benign manner….it’s simply too far gone for that. There will come a time for you to speak openly and frankly to your flock.

Semper Fidelis, perhaps the fact that I left the ultimate conclusion of my post up to the read, led to some confusion. The implicit conclusion of my post, then, is basically: Francis is under the influence of Satan and Benedict is a victim of Satan–to a certain extent. However, Benedict kept Satan (through Francis) from obtaining official control of the Mystical Body of Christ (Christ and anti-Christ, Vicar of Christ and anti-Vicar of Christ cannot rule together), which would it were able to happen would make a sham of Christ’s promise to Peter. Hence, Benedict pulled a fast one on Satan and renounced the “MINISTRY” and NOT THE PETRINE OFFICE. I have proved this in a thesis I have written (For a copy of my work please email to frdbelland@netscape.net.

Let’s consider that as Fr. Malachi Martin said in 1998 2/3 of those who say they belong to the Church are apostates–they are not Catholic. Can anyone tell me how in the world any POPE, no matter how saintly he may be, is going to clean up such an amount of garbage when he doesn’t even know who they all are? As Fr. Brian Harrison suggested in a Letter to the Editor in the Christmas issue of the Remnant Newspaper in 2016, we are in the time of which St. Paul spoke in 2 Thess. 2, AND WE CAN ONLY WAIT FOR THE “REVOLT” TO HAPPEN, while doing what we can to preserve the true Faith and to help others to do the same.

One way to hasten that revolt is for all Catholics with a true Sensus Fidei, a Sense of the Faith, to recognize Benedict as Pope and gather around him with the good Bishops and Priests, so that the Consecration of Russia can be made. In the past the faithful, and I mean decent Catholics were not afraid to throw their allegiance to one or the other claimants to the Papacy when there was a dispute as to who was Pope. Even St. Vincent Ferrer was loyal an anti-Pope, so mistakes can be made, but eventually those who are intellectually honest will follow the true Pope

Assuming that Benedict was ever a pope to begin with, how about he himself speak up and claim the papacy? Why would I recognize him as our true pope if he doesnt? He and Francis arent fighting as to who is the true vatican 2 “pope”….why are you?

“But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: “Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers” (Summa theologiae, IIa-IIae, qu. iii, art. 2, ad 2m.). To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: “Have confidence; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace. The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power.”

AlphonseJr. The truth is that Benedict is the Pope and no one is speaking out. These are the ones to whom your remarks truly apply. Why should we all sit back and listen to complaints about Francis, the list going back over 4 years now, with nothing being accomplished–except the self-aggrandizement of those who, unqualified as they are, like to hear themselves teach, but refuse to listen.

Those who are responding negatively to Father’s post must be correct. There are still a whole bunch of traditionally-oriented Catholics who are yet to be wounded in this “zealous” circular firing squad.

Thank you, Fr. Belland, for this excellent post. I’m sure there’s plenty going on in this battle against evil in the Church that we’re not privy to. And I think there’s good reason for those doing the battle to be concerned for their safety.
Whether or not it’s true we may never know it this life, but some believe that Pope John Paul I was killed because he vowed to do the Consecration of Russia exactly how Our Lady of Fatima requested. He’d had a lengthy visit with Sister Lucia and came away deeply moved.
The serpent knows who will crush his head. And she tells us to pray, especially the Rosary, make sacrifices and do penance. I consider those my marching orders.

Yes Tom A. We went out into the wilderness and what did we expect to see. Prelates expounding truth? What do we find. clergy running with the hounds of deception. Lying wonders. Time to stand up and be counted for Tradition and what it stands for, Christ Jesus, not some effeminate excuse for a hireling. There has always been unprecedented times, in every time. This is no different to any other in Church history. The “spirit of Vatican 11 is the son of perdition”. That’s obvious the blind guides and trying to drag us to Hell. Too much already!

I’m sorry, Simple Shepherd, but you’re wrong. Have you read about Our Lady’s appearance to Sr. Agnes at Akita? Have you read Frere Michel’s triligy “The Whold Truth about Fatima”? There have been in the history of the Church times of heresy, times of anti-Popes, and saintly and accomplished theologians considered the various potential possibilities and provided solutions to them. Now, can you give me ONE theologian who foresaw the infiltration into the Church and wrote treatises on how to counter act such a situation? I challenge you to do so.

The apparition at Quito foresaw our time clearly. The mystic visionary nun was asked to suffer for the people of our time, which would be the means to combat or counteract the evil.

The fact that theologians did not foresee the future and provide treatises on how to respond is irrelevant, not germaine. Theologians are not prophets. There job is to speculate. The magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church judges their work.

We may not know all the information available to leadership. We do know they have led the Church into a mess. Everything we see is caused. Policies, decisions, choices create the circumstances we live in.

Sorry I don’t buy any of these innovative canonizations. All the conciliar Popes going back to the one reigning in 1917 when Our Lady requested the Consecration of Russia up to today, have disobeyed the mother of God and this makes it impossible to be declared a saint. This isn’t just a simple mortal sin of infidelity we are talking about here. In a sense it could be compared to Original Sin and could be classified as the Original Sin of our time because the consecration is the root cause that could have prevented Vatican II and all the Post VII destruction. That is how grave it truly is. God put the demand on the highest earthly position to fulfill his Mothers request and all of them failed to do it; therefore, It is impossible to for them to be enjoying the Beatific Vision. At best, through the mercy of God, they made it to purgatory and will probably be there until the end of time. It is no different than the demands put on King Louis XIV, XV, XVI by Our Lady of Lasallete. All of those Kings are responsible for the souls lost to the Masonic government of France and the ones who lost their chance at eternal happiness. All the Conciliar Popes and their Predecessors are responsible for the lost souls because they failed to do the one simple request Our Lady asked at Fatima. And then what’s worse is JPII’s consecration to the world! That is equivalent to slapping Our Lady and Our Lord across the Face. The Crucifixion all over again, except this time by the Hierarchy of Christ Church indirectly lead again by the same group of people who crucified Him the first time. Our Lady of Fatima Pray for us who have recourse to thee.

Having just shown the fate of the damned (in the first part of the Secret of Fatima) to the three shepherd children of Fatima, on July 13, 1917, Our Lady then confided to them the second part of the Secret. This second part primarily concerns Heavens requests for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and for the Communions of Reparation on theFirst Saturdays and the consequences of failing to heed these requests. As recorded in Sister Lucys memoirs, the second part of the Secret is as follows:

Text of Second Part of Secret

To save them [poor sinners who are on the road to hell], God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end; but if people do not cease offending God, a worse war will break out during the reign of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that He is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions against the Church and against the Holy Father.
To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated.1
Conclusion to the Whole Secret of Fatima

In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.

Beloved,
June 17, 1929 at Tuy
The moment has come when God asks the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means. So numerous are the souls which the justice of God condemns for sins committed against Me, that I come to ask for reparation. Sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray.
It is unreasonable to criticize a pope for failing to consecrate Russia prior to this date.

grandfather,
This humble servant stands corrected. You are correct and thanks for pointing it out. Our Lady stated to the Fatima children in 1917 that she would come to ask for the Consecration and on June 17, 1929 at Tuy like you stated was when she actually requested it. So for the record Pope Pius XI and onward are responsible and were disobedient. Another correction I must make is the request of the Sacred Heart of Jesus was made from Our Lord to St Margaret Mary not from Our lady of Lasalette as I stated previously. Over time factual events regarding countries and people have a tendency to blend together unless one revisits history constantly.

In caritasAugust 19, 2017

Good Saturday morning Brethren,

To insert a correction of the date of the Tuy apparition, which occurred not on June 17, rather it occurred on June 13, 1929. In caritas.

It seems the reign of the Antichrist will soon be upon us (is it already???). Diabolical disorientation in every field–from politics to law to entertainment to diet to philosophy to, above all, theology–now reigns supreme. Even most of those who believe they’re conservatives are actually liberals (these unconscious liberals are now known as cuckservatives, or in the Catholic sphere, CatholiCucks).

The answer to the Challenge by Fr Belland, is- the Church was foretold by Our Lady at La Salette. Any wonder the last five popes buried the Third Secret of Fatima; it speaks directly of their collusion with the Demon to attempt a downfall of the hierarchy and those “blinded by the blind guides”. Making excuses for these apostates is past news. It doesn’t wash. They have denied Christ. And expect the rest of us to follow them out of some “duty”? No thanks emphatically. We don’t need just theologians to tell us the News. The Mother of God told us, time and again. Ora pro nobis.

Benedict XVI was one of the most dangerous to the true faith popes in history (if a true pope can actually be a danger to the faith). He was influenced by Hegel:

The Hegelian view of God’s involvement in the unfolding of history as Geist (Spirit) is at root a Christian heresy, reminiscent of the spiritualism of the 12th-century theologian Joachim de Fiore. For the Hegelian, God suffers with, and changes, precisely through the sin and suffering of his creatures, dialectically pouring out his love and mercy through the progress of history.

Citing a Lutheran hymn, “God Himself is Dead”, Hegel argues that God unites death to his nature. And so when we encounter suffering and death, we taste the particularities of the eternal divine “history”. As he puts it, suffering “is a moment in the nature of God himself; it has taken place in God himself.” For Hegel, suffering is an aspect of God’s eternal nature. Our sin and suffering is necessary for God to be God.

This heretical view has had widespread influence in modern Catholic and Protestant accounts of God’s nature. It’s often given a pastoral veneer of the God who weeps with us. Yet, tragically unaware of his error, the Hegelian homilist preaches a God who cannot save: a God who is so eternally bound to our tears he cannot truly wipe them away.

Many 20th-century German theologians followed in Hegel’s footsteps. A basic principle was Hegel’s dialectic process itself as revelatory, which is to say they smuggled into their ideas on “doctrinal development” the notion that God was continuing to reveal himself in history, as though there was always something “becoming” in God, and thus, in the Church. Hegel’s spiritual forerunner Joachim de Fiore had predicted a “third age of the Holy Spirit” which would sing a new Church into being, and it’s striking how many German theologians have been entranced by the idea of a future Church very different to the holy and apostolic one of the past.

There is something deeply Hegelian about making the unfolding of human experience in history a standard for theological development — to which God or the Church, always in mercy, must conform. Unfortunately, this is a terrible standard for change which leads not only to false reform, but to apostasy and desolation.

The standard for development, as 19th century German theologian Matthias Scheeben understood as well as Cardinal Newman, must be divinely revealed truths, the deposit of faith, passed from Christ to his apostles. (Excerpts from an article writting by C.C. Pecknold, Associate Professor of Theology at The Catholic University of America.)